What are the sorts of policies and laws that can better address internal
displacement and urban settlement? IDPs know better than anyone what they need and how to achieve it. They are not simply victims – they are also the agents of innovative and adaptive responses to displacement. Policymakers would do well to learn from the ways in which IDPs integrate into receptor cities, developing economic, social and political survival strategies. Along these lines, Davis (2012) suggests “turning attention to the ways individuals and institutions at the level of the community carve out spaces for action even in the most dire of circumstances” (p. 29).
What follows are a few key takeaways on how to learn from IDP resilience:
focusing on long-term integration, supporting IDP community organizing, and reframing policy to target social networks rather than individuals.
Designing solutions for long-term urban integration
Above all, there must be a clear recognition that local integration of IDPs is an ongoing process that will require ongoing support. As IDPs build new lives, communities absorb and incorporate large influxes of vulnerable populations, municipal authorities adjust to shifting needs of their constituencies and the national government continues to struggle with the persistent violent conflict, the solution is not to be found in short-term emergency assistance but rather in long-term, comprehensive support.
Policymakers are too often swayed by the trends in international policy that do not take into account the local context. International pressure to enforce the “right to return,” for example, can skew state policy towards return instead of compensation and support for local integration into new host communities (Smit 2012). For example, much of the 2011 Victims’ Law is directed towards return when the fact is that around 80% of Colombian IDPs report preferring local settlement into cities (Carrillo 2009). Providing public assistance for urban integration should not be secondary when the vast majority of IDPs prefer it. As Albuja and Ceballos (2010) write, “development support is
indispensable in the long run in cities [because] the bulk of IDPs appear to have the same aspiration as migrants, that is, to remain in the city permanently...If settlement in the city
of displacement is to be a durable solution, it requires realization of the entire spectrum of rights of IDPs, without discrimination” (p. 10).
When is a period of displacement over? For the generations that grow up in cities of reception and may never return to their communities of origin, displacement is by no means a short-term experience. Understanding and responding to the lived dynamics of IDP settlement over longer periods of time can prevent the kinds of emergency aid programs (like housing subsidies that run out) that are unreliable, temporary and ultimately destabilizing. Real local integration will require the continuous support of municipal authorities (and not just national policymakers) as well as the active
participation of IDPs who live out the consequences of policy and aid programs (Ferris and Halff 2011a). Furthermore, municipal policies should be designed in a way that can effectively target IDP-specific needs without antagonizing or further marginalizing host communities (Davies and Jacobsen 2011).
Some of these long-term interventions could include livelihoods programs for the kind of socioeconomic stabilization that has thus far been lacking for IDPs. To avoid the mistakes of past programs that have exacerbated tensions within host communities and only increased competition for a limited and generally impoverished clientele, policy makers should focus less on individual entrepreneurship and more on collective or
cooperatively-owned businesses. Community-oriented economic development recognizes that the wellbeing of a household is interdependent on that of the wider community.
Collective businesses (e.g. agricultural cooperatives, artisan associations, etc.) serve not only economic functions but also create the conditions for social support, as well.
Supporting on-the-ground IDP community organizing
Confronted with limited municipal human and financial resources for IDP assistance, the Colombian government should take advantage of an important partner in this work by focusing on the ways in which they can bolster the groundwork already being done by IDP community organizations and movements. Recognizing the obstacles these organizations face in balancing the triple jornada, in securing safe meeting spaces, in bearing the transportation and opportunity costs of organizing and in confronting armed actors is the first step to building better and more supportive public policies. The
provision (and protection) of safe and free or subsidized community spaces,
transportation98 and/or childcare subsidies for community organizers and community-led security initiatives in response to threats are all viable possibilities.
Reframing communities as units of intervention
Perhaps the most interesting and challenging implication for policy arising from the study of IDPs and urban settlement is the need to shift the focus to “communities”
(in the form of spatially organized personal networks) as the units of intervention. At the root of displacement is the breakdown of social networks. Rather than providing aid on
98 As Davis (2012) sums up: “While one can develop programs to build social capital or employment capacity by engaging citizens in a variety of new activities and networks, if the recipients of these programs are prevented from the free movement in space necessary for acting upon their new connections, the development and utilization of social capital can only go so far” (p. 13).
an individual or household basis with little regard for the ripple effects this may cause in the wider community, stronger IDP assistance policies require the consultation and participation of all members of displacement-affected communities (including both IDPs and non-IDPs). Rao and Walton (2004) call for community-based interventions that move “from a focus on individuals to a recognition that relational and group-based phenomena shape and influence individual aspiration, capabilities and agency” (p. 30).
Household-targeted public policies that bear no reference to or acknowledgement of the relationship between individuals and a wider web of actors lose out on the opportunity to bolster and enable community cohesion or collective action (Davis 2012).
One way of refocusing policy on communities would be to expand service
provision beyond direct assistance to IDPs to include their non-IDP neighbors also living in extreme poverty. Community-level needs assessments, monitoring, and evaluation tools can more directly capture the full impact of urban settlement on both IDPs and non-IDPs and initiate the reconstruction of social bonds (Moser 2000; Singh and Robinson 2010; Ferris and Halff 2011a). A broad-based approach could lessen tensions between IDPs and the historic poor, diminish the pressures placed on the IDP-only system and potentially prevent armed actors and other profiteers from preying off of IDPs for their assistance funds. As Ferris (2008a) writes, “the state has to understand that displacement is not a problem for a particular group, but for the whole society” (p. 8).
Community building and social cohesion can in turn become mutually reinforcing for future conflict prevention and mediation (Frederico et al. 2007; Christensen and Harild 2009). As Colletta and Cullen (2000) write, “the admonition to ‘get the policies right’ may still be valid, but it is not sufficient. ‘Getting the social relations right’ is necessary for avoiding violent conflict" (p. 108).
Even beyond preventing future violence, a social networks approach is cognizant of IDP resilience strategies that rely on extended social ties to connect to economic and political opportunities. Recognizing the power of family, friendship, community and institutional relationships is central to building better cities not just for IDPs but also for all those who make their homes there.
So, what would community-based IDP policy look like? Unfortunately, there have been few concrete examples. A few experiments in community-based IDP aid have been implemented in a handful of countries, including Sierra Leone (Richards, Bah, and Vincent 2004), Indonesia (Mooney 2005), and the Philippines (Frederico et al. 2007), but it is still a relatively young field of policy innovation that is certainly worth further development and study.
Some examples of place-based programs that target spatial communities in which IDPs and non-IDPs live side by side include upgrades in urban infrastructure (e.g. water and sanitation, schools, health facilities) and the creation and maintenance of safe family-friendly spaces, community centers and other public spaces (Davies and Jacobsen 2011).
However, targeting the more diffuse IDP social networks that most likely cross
neighborhood boundaries is a more complicated task because such physical interventions are limited to those who live close by. One option would be to actively support the information-sharing function of these networks by providing trainings to community leaders on the most up-to-date national and local policy frameworks. Another option policymakers could consider, in addition to providing support for existing IDP civil
society organizations, would be to directly facilitate coalition-building and learning between these organizations.
Whatever the program, policy or intervention, municipal authorities should work in collaboration with IDPs, their neighborhoods and their organizations. This
co-production of both knowledge and action can also help rebuild trust between the public and the state.